Samsung releases Galaxy S II ICS source code(androidcommunity.com)
androidcommunity.com
Samsung releases Galaxy S II ICS source code
http://androidcommunity.com/samsung-releases-galaxy-s-ii-ics-source-code-20120319/
3 comments
The bigger question, to me, is what drivers are included. Many of the chips in all these phones do not have specifications freely available or community-built drivers. Does this include, say, the GPU driver? Or is that still a binary blob that has to be (usually illegally) copied from the device's built-in software?
The Mali (GPU) kernel module source is there, but not the proprietary userland libraries. So the situation is as you say.
(AFAIK the only Android manufacturer to secure binary distribution rights for GPU drivers was Google with the PowerVR GPU in the Nexus One, and that download comes with heavy restrictions - only for Nexus One, only for Android, do not redistribute, etc. I don't know why GPU manufacturers are so paranoid.)
That said, I don't really know the S2 but I'm fairly sure the Mali GPU libraries and the baseband are the only closed components in the EXYNOS platform. So it could be worse :/.
(AFAIK the only Android manufacturer to secure binary distribution rights for GPU drivers was Google with the PowerVR GPU in the Nexus One, and that download comes with heavy restrictions - only for Nexus One, only for Android, do not redistribute, etc. I don't know why GPU manufacturers are so paranoid.)
That said, I don't really know the S2 but I'm fairly sure the Mali GPU libraries and the baseband are the only closed components in the EXYNOS platform. So it could be worse :/.
We're not paranoid; that resistribution restriction on our driver didn't come from us (I work for PowerVR). As a rule of thumb, it's the device or SoC vendor that calls those shots and controls redistribution.
I interviewed once for a graphics driver programming position for Imagination Tech. (who own PowerVR) and my impression was that they were indeed absolutely paranoid about open source.
The first thing the guy had a go at me for was my pretty meager contributions to open source. Apparently this was a solid indicator that I would give out all the company secrets!
If the interviewer had a problem with your open source contributions then I'm sorry, since that really shouldn't be any problem for us whatsoever. There is absolutely no feeling at the company that open source equals the leak of secrets, and I find it hard to believe your story because of that.
Thanks for clarifying. I admit that I was very put off when I downloaded the Nexus drivers and had to scroll though all the legalese just to use them (I was actually messing with a Samsung S5P SoC on a different board and I was hoping that I might be able to reuse those drivers there - no dice as per the EULA.).
Is there any reason why PowerVR don't release userland binary libraries for download themselves? Is it just that the libraries are too closely wedded to specific kernel modules and the like? Or specific hardware revisions? (I noticed breaking changes between different version of the pvr kernel module sources.)
Or is it more just that there's no real incentive to bother?
Is there any reason why PowerVR don't release userland binary libraries for download themselves? Is it just that the libraries are too closely wedded to specific kernel modules and the like? Or specific hardware revisions? (I noticed breaking changes between different version of the pvr kernel module sources.)
Or is it more just that there's no real incentive to bother?
Purely technically, it wouldn't be too difficult for us to release something. The driver tends to be coupled to the SoC, rather than the graphics core (and core revision), due to integration with the SoC's display hardware, so we'd release drivers for a 'platform' rather than our graphics IP. That's what Google did for Nexus S, so we'd follow that model.
The big thing stopping us is support and maintaining the code that does the graphics IP to SoC coupling. We could dump that burden on the SoC/platform vendor (like with Google), but eventually code support just swims upstream to us and we don't have the resources right now to handle that for a large number of SoCs.
Apologies that the EULA prevented you from using those drivers on another S5PC110 platform, I really wish that wasn't the case.
The big thing stopping us is support and maintaining the code that does the graphics IP to SoC coupling. We could dump that burden on the SoC/platform vendor (like with Google), but eventually code support just swims upstream to us and we don't have the resources right now to handle that for a large number of SoCs.
Apologies that the EULA prevented you from using those drivers on another S5PC110 platform, I really wish that wasn't the case.
Not all manufacturers are so paranoid. Qualcomm has released the Adreno 2xx GPU drivers for ICS (which is very exciting for those of us with Snapdragons):
https://developer.qualcomm.com/develop/mobile-technologies/g...
I'm actually using these now (courtesy of the developer of my custom ROM) and they are a big improvement over leaked drivers I had been using.
https://developer.qualcomm.com/develop/mobile-technologies/g...
I'm actually using these now (courtesy of the developer of my custom ROM) and they are a big improvement over leaked drivers I had been using.
> I don't know why GPU manufacturers are so paranoid.
I've read the reason for the paranoia around GPU drivers has something to do with modern GPUs needing so much controlling software in the driver that the competition could glean details of the hardware design from the driver source code.
I'm unable to find the source of this information. Can anyone privy to these sorts of details confirm or deny this?
I've read the reason for the paranoia around GPU drivers has something to do with modern GPUs needing so much controlling software in the driver that the competition could glean details of the hardware design from the driver source code.
I'm unable to find the source of this information. Can anyone privy to these sorts of details confirm or deny this?
Well, I didn't even mean source code (although that would be great.) It's hard enough just to find binary GL blobs that you're legally allowed to pass around.
With respect to the source code, I suspect you're right - and I'd also suspect FUD around the possibility of patent issues when other people can see more of how things are implemented. But IANAL or a GPU manufacturer so I'm just guessing.
With respect to the source code, I suspect you're right - and I'd also suspect FUD around the possibility of patent issues when other people can see more of how things are implemented. But IANAL or a GPU manufacturer so I'm just guessing.
Yes, there are differences between Gingerbread and ICS kernels, though I don't know what they are (other than moving to a 3.x kernel). From what I understand, this is one of the reasons CM9 development has been slow in general (and particularly slow for some devices).
That being said, you're right that Samsung's prompt GPL compliance isn't particularly newsworthy. The recent, newsworthy source release is HTC's. They released the ICS kernel source for the Sensation promptly, without their typical "not until you've waited a few months and threatened a lawsuit" nonsense. Hopefully that trend continues.
That being said, you're right that Samsung's prompt GPL compliance isn't particularly newsworthy. The recent, newsworthy source release is HTC's. They released the ICS kernel source for the Sensation promptly, without their typical "not until you've waited a few months and threatened a lawsuit" nonsense. Hopefully that trend continues.
As an Android user, I do not want the TouchWiz overlay. I want the pure, unadulterated ICS UI goodness. Why doesn't Samsung "get it"? (Don't answer that).
Samsung has recently become the largest smartphone manufacturer in the world, yet you think they don't "get it"?
Your carrier decides which phones they will carry, and what software those phones will include and exclude. Samsung's job is to do whatever the carriers want. The carriers in return give Samsung support and precious shelf space.
Your carrier also wants you to blame Samsung and not them for all the things that suck about your phone. So well done.
Your carrier decides which phones they will carry, and what software those phones will include and exclude. Samsung's job is to do whatever the carriers want. The carriers in return give Samsung support and precious shelf space.
Your carrier also wants you to blame Samsung and not them for all the things that suck about your phone. So well done.
I know this. That was what my "don't answer that" was about. Sorry to be cryptic, but I'm fully aware of the politics and power the carriers exert on the US smartphone market. I don't like it, but I understand it.
They do get it. They want you to feel an attachment to Samsung devices, not to Android devices. They want customer's to think 'well, I already know how to use a Galaxy, so I'll get the newest one of those', rather than buying an HTC because it's the newest Android.
Samsung have been some of the best in helping get custom ROMs going on their devices, and if you want stock Android, it'll always be available to you that way.
Samsung have been some of the best in helping get custom ROMs going on their devices, and if you want stock Android, it'll always be available to you that way.
Luckily for you, you can choose. Just like I did. Sure CM9 is not 100% there but it's pretty, functional and I love it.
Where do you get it from? A short search has turned up nothing.
http://www.theandroidsoul.com/cm9-galaxy-s2/
It's a fairly long procedure, but it's a nice result in the end.
http://imgur.com/eMPHU
It's a fairly long procedure, but it's a nice result in the end.
http://imgur.com/eMPHU
Ah, for the Galaxy S2. I have a Desire HD (Inspire) and I already installed ICS a while ago with the IceColdSandwich ROM. I was wondering if CM9 was available for it, but it doesn't seem to be.
CM9 stands for Cyanogenmod 9.
I'm genuinely curious, how is the ICS TouchWiz overlay a problem for you in practice?
Pre-ICS, I'll agree that the custom manufacturer widgets could create issues (performance, app consistency, etc.). However, starting with ICS, manufacturers will have to include the stock widgets as well and apps are likely to select them (to avoid these kinds of issues).
It also isn't hard to replace the TouchWiz launcher with an AOSP-based one (e.g. Apex, Nova, Trebuchet). After that, what is left and how important is it?
Pre-ICS, I'll agree that the custom manufacturer widgets could create issues (performance, app consistency, etc.). However, starting with ICS, manufacturers will have to include the stock widgets as well and apps are likely to select them (to avoid these kinds of issues).
It also isn't hard to replace the TouchWiz launcher with an AOSP-based one (e.g. Apex, Nova, Trebuchet). After that, what is left and how important is it?
There was recent convincing discussion that to the vast majority of the 20+ million(?) people who own the phone have no idea what ICS is and would be shocked if Samsung put out an update that completely changed the UX.
You mean the 2 line submission pointing to Gruber on daring fireball where he stated, without any citations at all, that a UI update would freak people out and cause unspecified issues? Despite the fact that multiple platforms get UI updates?
Might as well tag "So buy an Iphone" to the bottom of any Gruber post referencing android (Substitute Ipad if the post relates to tablets)
Might as well tag "So buy an Iphone" to the bottom of any Gruber post referencing android (Substitute Ipad if the post relates to tablets)
Well at least he made an argument, all you have is an ad hominem attack on him. And he was defending Samsung's decision so your bias attack goes nowhere. So I guess he wins by default? Yeah let's go with that.
Touchwiz has a very poor UI and looks. Sense is far superior to Touchwiz.
You're a hacker purist. Most consumers are not. Many actually like the features that Touchwiz brings.
It's actually interesting in that "pure, unadulterated" Android has very heavily borrowed from Sense UI, TouchWiz, and Motoblur. Those custom skins were what really helped move the platform forward.
It's actually interesting in that "pure, unadulterated" Android has very heavily borrowed from Sense UI, TouchWiz, and Motoblur. Those custom skins were what really helped move the platform forward.
I don't know. As somebody that was a day-one G1 customer, I think the influence of Mattias Duarte coming on board has had far more impact on the platform than any of these OEM skins. You can see the influence of Duarte's previous work at Palm all over ICS, far more so than any of the custom skins.
What I have certainly seen is manufacturers breaking baked-in functionality on Android trying to differentiate themselves. Moto managed to break both manual Exchange configuration and Facebook sync on my Droid 4, for example. It's not like those are obscure functions nobody uses.
What I have certainly seen is manufacturers breaking baked-in functionality on Android trying to differentiate themselves. Moto managed to break both manual Exchange configuration and Facebook sync on my Droid 4, for example. It's not like those are obscure functions nobody uses.
I'm not sure in which update you're referring to Facebook sync being "broken", but this was purposefully removed from stock by Google in Android 2.3.3.
In fact, that argument is laid out in more detail here:
http://androidandme.com/2012/02/news/why-androids-custom-uis...
http://androidandme.com/2012/02/news/why-androids-custom-uis...
You do, but Samsung is a multi-billion corp and wants YOU to know that they exist...by making something of their own.
This is really good news. I just hope the article is correct and this can actually be modded fairly easily for T-Mobile(T989) and AT&T phones.
(EDIT: it is indeed just the GPL parts.)
In which case, can someone explain how it's really newsworthy? Samsung have been exemplary in all their GPL compliance for all their Android releases to date.
open source code ROM builders and other modders will be able to do more advanced ports and advanced ROMs.
Well, now they can build with the latest kernel instead of the Gingerbread kernel, but does that really make much difference to anything else? Are there outstanding kernel bugs in the Gingerbread releases, or new kernel features that ICS AOSP needs to run?